MBSAE Draft NRA QA.pdf

Since the period of performance overlaps with NASA MBSA&E Phase I and Phase II, there is confusion over whether the proposal is about checking out and integrating with NASA capabilities developed in Phase I or delivering representative data for Phase II. Could the intent be clarified? This will be clarified in the Final NRA document.

Could NASA share more information about what has been done and what is expected to get out of this contract, since the MBSA&E framework has been in work since 10/1/2021?

More information about the current state of NASA's Phase I work is provided in the NRA document and the Industry Day presentation. Additional details on NASA internal work will be shared with the selected partners and the general community throughout the NRA awards.

Will NASA provide the offerors with the current version of OpenMDAO that is being used in the MBSA&E framework? This is needed for the offerors to work with the compatible version. A description/access to NASA’s IDE where OpenMDAO is being operated is also needed. Or does NASA expect the offerors to setup their own development environment?

NASA is using the latest released version of OpenMDAO (v 3.26) for the MBSA&E framework and will regularly updated to the newest release when it becomes available.

Could NASA provide the descriptions or data format of the tools that are already integrated into the framework? Or does NASA expect the offerors to propose their own solutions, including the tools and data formats, regardless of the current implementations within NASA? Per FAR Part 35, all offerors shall provide a Work Plan (Statement of Work).

Does NASA have any preference on MBSE architecture tool or syntax? Or is any publicly available MBSE tool or syntax is acceptable to NASA?

Specific MBSE tools or syntax are not required by NASA. Offerors are free to propose the MBSE software tool or syntax that they believe will best support the subtopic research areas in Section 5.

Goals of Phase I include demonstration, testing, and assessment of the MBSA&E framework’s capabilities using an advanced tube-and-wing aircraft, a TTBW aircraft and/or an EAP aircraft. Could NASA provide more details of the level of analysis that is expected using such concepts as evaluation use cases?

The broad goals for Phase I of the MBSA&E work include testing and evaluation of the frameworks capabilities on several aircraft models by the NASA team. The Phase I NRA is targeted at leveraging innovative ideas from industry and academia to develop supporting capabilities in several key areas (topics and subtopics in the NRA). NASA intends to release elements of this framework and example models as available/necessary for use by offerors if desired.

Regarding capability evaluation using conventional, TTBW, or EAP aircraft concepts for Phase I, will NASA provide the concepts or data to the contractor?

Does NASA expect the offerors to come up with their own testing data?

The broad goals for Phase I of the MBSA&E work include testing and evaluation of the frameworks capabilities on several aircraft models by the NASA team. The Phase I NRA is targeted at leveraging innovative ideas from industry and academia to develop supporting capabilities in several key areas (topics and subtopics in the NRA). NASA intends to release elements of this framework and example models as available/necessary for use by offerors if desired.

Regarding capability evaluation using conventional, TTBW, or EAP aircraft concepts for Phase I, is the offeror expected to come up with a testing plan for each CLIN number separately using different concepts? Or is the offeror expected to come up with a testing plan for the integrated framework?

NASA will be responsible for developing and testing the overall integrated framework. The offeror can propose any testing they determine to be necessary or beneficial for their development activities proposed under each CLIN.

If different proposals are partially awarded to different teams (e.g. CLIN 001-004 to group A, CLIN 005-008 to group B), is it NASA’s responsibility to integrate the capabilities developed under different CLIN numbers together to form an integrated MBSA&E framework for Phase II? If not, is it Phase I offerors’ responsibility or Phase II offerors’ responsibility to integrate the capabilities from different CLIN numbers?

It will be NASA's responsibility to integrate capabilities developed under different CLIN numbers to form the integrated MBSA&E framework.

Regarding the MBSE side, will NASA release the requirements to support the MBSA&E framework development? Or does NASA expect the offerors to develop and analyze the systems requirements as part of the statement of work?

NASA is interested in developing the connection of MBSE tools with other tools being implemented within the MBSA&E framework under 5.1.3. Offerors should propose solutions and requirements they determine would best respond to the research effort described in that subtopic.

Is sharing of systems engineering models (e.g. SysML models for logical architectures and traceability to requirements) considered under the data/model sharing topic (CLIN 004 or CLIN 005)? Or is it considered under CLIN 003?

Sharing systems engineering models between industry and NASA would be covered under CLIN 004 or CLIN 005. Connecting systems engineering models to systems analysis or MDAO models is under CLIN 003.

It is noted that NASA has included FAR 52.227-16 Additional Data Requirements and FAR 52.2270-14 Alt II allowing delivery of Limited Rights technical data.

Since such data will not be withheld, the inclusion of Alt V appears redundant and is requested to be removed.

Will be considered and updated change may appear on Final NRA- Alt V is up to CO (protection for NASA).

Since NASA discusses software in the solicitation, does NASA intend to add FAR 52.227-14 Alt III or will NASA wish for contractors to withhold their Restricted Rights computer software from deliverables? FAR 52.227-14 Alt III will be added to Final NRA.

Since contractors will be developing models under the contract, it is requested that such contractors should be allowed to claim copyright beyond scientific and technical articles to help industry protect its intellectual property. As a result, it is requested that FAR 52.227-14 Alt IV be included to allow contractors to assert copyright for data first produced in the performance of the contract.

FAR 52.227-14 Alt IV applies to academic institutions. If an award is made to a commercial firm, the clause will not apply.

The solicitation references FAR 52.227-16, Additional Data Requirements. Due to the great amount of background IP that the contractors will be utilizing as part of the envisioned program, of which has a value far in excess of the total value of this effort, it is requested that the effect of the clause be restricted to data first produced under this program by striking, “or specifically used” in the clause. FAR 52.227-16 will remain in the final NRA.

The solicitation references FAR 52.227-17, Rights in Data - Special Works. Under FAR 27.409(e), this clause is used in, “solicitations and contracts primarily for the production or compilation of data (other than limited rights data or restricted computer software) for the Government’s internal use…” The scope of this effort appears to be in conflict with the types of efforts this clause applies to and is in conflict with the FAR 52.227-14 Alt II allowing for delivery of Limited Rights data.

As a result, it is requested that this clause be removed. FAR 52.227-17 will remain in the final NRA.

The model contract references FAR 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (JUN 2016), per the FAR however that clause is only required when the contractor systems will have Federal Contract information residing in its systems. Please clarify what information will be residing on contractor systems.

Awarded Contractors will have access to NASA data transfer platform, such as

BOX.

The model contract references NFS 1852.227-88, Government Furnished Software and related technical data. Please indicate whether the software provided (e.g., OpenMDAO) will be Government Furnish information or whether it will also be available from sources other than the Government. If such software can be obtained from other sources under its applicable license terms form that source it is requested that this clause be removed.

OpenMDAO is open-source software and is therefore available to all users at no cost.

The model contract references NFS 1852.237-72, Access to Sensitive Information.

Due to the potential for precluding future participation on future development efforts, it is requested that NASA provide a list of the intended specific sensitive information that is contemplated to be provided to industry. In the event specific information cannot be identified, it is requested that this clause be stricken. If specific information is identified and can be obtained directly from third parties without being provided by the Government, it is requested that the Government remove this clause upon a showing that such information can be obtained, or that such information is not required for performance of the program. No, we will not remove. NASA will let you know and you will respect if there's sensitive data. This is a default clause to protect NASA and contractor.

NASA mentioned in its evaluation criteria that it will evaluate the proposal to determine suitability of the software packages for the proposed contribution or development, accessibility of the software for broad use across NASA and industry partners, and compatibility of the software packages with rest of the MBSA&E framework. In terms of suitability and accessibility of software packages, does NASA have an expectation on the default level of rights required for the various evaluation criteria? Would such rights have to be automatically granted or can they be provided via industry licenses on an as-negotiated basis? There is no expectation for the default level of rights required at this time. There is no expectation that rights to software be automatically granted.

NASA mentioned Model Sharing and Collaboration Approaches (CLINs 004 and 005), when combined with the intellectual property technical merit evaluation factors around suitability and reasonableness of the proposed IP rights, what level of IP rights does NASA require for usage of the models?

The precise level of IP rights required by NASA has not been determined at this time.

Is NASA open to a bifurcation of models (industry and proprietary) so that industry can collaborate towards enhancing development of much needed technologies and provide NASA sufficient rights on representative models but at the same time protecting key IP and the associated industry business cases of commercialization of such technologies with proprietary models?

NASA is open to any solution for model sharing and protecting key IP rights that will also enable the assessment, advancement and adoption of SFNP technologies in future products.

If different teams have coordinated proposals (not subcontracting), how will NASA award the proposed tasks? Does NASA allow one team to adjust the proposed task if another team’s coordinated proposal is not awarded?

NASA will not grant an opportunity to revise the proposal. All proposed items shall be segregated (if possible) for the maximum flexibility in consideration

Do wholly owned subsidiaries of U.S. organizations incorporated under the laws of another country constitute ineligible non-U.S. organizations? Please ensure the organization is eligible by completing attachment C.

Will the beta version of NASA’s MBSA&E framework have unlimited rights? Can it be freely modified and used on other programs?

All Work developed under the contract with NASA funds will be UNLIMITED rights. Offerors may, however, propose LIMITED rights should the data be considered background data, solely funded by the offeror prior to award.

Are there any tools in NASA's current framework that are not freely available to government contractors?

Most of the tools being implemented in the MBSA&E are freely available.

However, there are some commercial software packages (SNOPT, MagicDraw, and NASTRAN) currently included in the framework. While these commercial tools may be integrated, freely available options are available and acceptable in this NRA.

Will Phase I participation determine eligibility for proposal on a Phase II NRA? Eligibility requirements for Phase II will be identified in the solicitation for that effort.

What are some gaps in analysis tools in NASA’s current OpenMDAO framework?

We don’t want to propose a SOW that improves on already robust discipline components.

More information about the current state of NASA's Phase I work is provided in the NRA document and the Industry Day presentation.

Will we be given initial “concepts of interest” that NASA has previously explored? NASA is planning to share example aircraft concept models for use by partners in this NRA.

Is NASA interested in the development of new tools/software that fill gaps within their notional MBSA&E framework, or are the mostly interested in adapting/integrating already existing tools?

NASA is interested in both development of new tools and integrating existing tools which fill gaps in the MBSA&E framework. See subtopics 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 for details.

It is not clear from the DNRA if NASA wants industry to focus on the "Development" (Phase I) or the "Application" (Phase II) of the MBSA&E framework (towards the development of a reference and vision vehicle models)?

What Phase does NASA want industry to focus on for this DNRA?

The current Phase I NRA is focused strictly on capability development and aligns with the NASA internal Phase I effort.

Does NASA want industry to define and develop a "Vision Vehicle Model"? Or, is NASA looking for a plan that works towards that goal?

The development of vision vehicle models is not being considered under the current NRA. The MBSA&E capabilities developed under this Phase I NRA may be used by NASA in Phase II of the MBSA&E work to develop such models.

By "reference vehicles", is NASA looking for something similar to a digital version of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM)?

The development of reference vehicle models is not being considered under the current NRA. The MBSA&E capabilities developed under this Phase I NRA may be used by NASA in Phase II of the MBSA&E work to develop such models.

Is NASA developing Phase II plans, or is NASA looking to industry to develop those plans or in collaboration? NASA will take the lead on developing Phase II plans and research activities.

Has NASA already developed or have plans to develop safety and reliability models? or, is NASA looking to industry to develop them?

NASA is interested in models for all disciplines which are needed to support the assessment, advancement, and adoption of SFNP technologies for implementation in future vehicle products. Offerors may propose the development of any disciplinary models and tools they determine would support that objective.

Is NASA looking for vehicle-level performance assessment, or in a larger context, like System-of-Systems (interacting with other vehicle systems), or effectiveness?

NASA is interested in models for all disciplines which are needed to support the assessment, advancement, and adoption of SFNP technologies for implementation in future vehicle products. Offerors may propose the development of any disciplinary models and tools they determine would support that objective.

What would NASA expect to do with the models that will be delivered by the awardee and how would they be managed? Would models be shared with the community or reserved for NASA usage only? For proprietary models that are shared would those be kept at NASA only for use only by NASA or would the protected models be broadly shared?

NASA will follow all intellectual property requirements agreed to in the NRA awards.

Are there any specific software tools and versions that the NASA expects us to provide or use?

Specific tools are not required by NASA. Offerors are free to propose software tools that they believe will best support the subtopic research areas in Section 5.

Can we deliver data/models/ in our native format, or do we need to comply with a specific format(s)?

NASA is not too concerned about formatting for technical deliverables; however, the deliverables must meet all technical objectives and data rights requirements.

Are we going to be notified of the specific version of each tool that NASA will be using?

NASA will share the version number of software tools being used. In general, NASA aims to use the newest version of all software tools subject to IT security requirements.

Do we need to provide evidence that tools meet the criteria in I.102.52.204-21 in the Draft+Model+Contract document? Provide any required documents as all clauses instruct.

Who will be administering access/security? Refer to Applicable Document List (ADL).

Will NASA require any access to our IT environment/network?

NASA is not requesting access to the IT environment/network of individual organizations unless that access is offered as part of the solution proposed to one or more of the subtopics

Multiple option awards and possible partial-award, how will options be awarded? All proposed technologies may be awarded fully or partially.

NRA approach- looking for innovative “is NASA looking for innovative approach outside of NASA”?

Yes, NASA is looking for innovative approaches developed by industry and academia which address the topics/subtopics in Section 5

Will the attendee list and industry day charts be shared publicly? Yes, all Industry Day information are available on SAM.gov.

Will NASA be able to make NASA subject matter experts available post-award? Pending availability, such request needs to be made on proposal.

Will separate awardees be working together? No.

IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE INFORMATION IN THIS Q/A AND THE FINAL NRA, THE INFORMATION FOUND ON FINAL NRA PREVAILS